Rhetorical legerdemain
Back in November 2005, Reps. Barton and Upton floated a telecom bill that appeared to have nice language in it about network neutrality.
But it also would have allowed providers of high-speed (fiber optic) broadband video services to offer “enhanced quality of service to subscribers through the [network provider’s] utilization of network and routing management or customized hardware.”
“Broadband video services,” were in turn defined as those services “delivered directly to subscribers over facilities the service provider owns and controls.”
Now, this may sound perfectly rational: we built the high-speed network, we can use it to provide enhanced services for subscribers. And, indeed, the draft legislation goes on to provide that broadband video services “may not block or unreasonably impair or interfere with . . the use of any lawful content, application, or service provided over the Internet.”
But it has finally become clear to me that the telephone companies are planning to ensure that subscribers never see “the Internet” at all over these high-speed connections. Instead, subscribers will see the “broadband video” offerings of the network owner, to which particular paying web sites and paying VoIP services have been added. They’ll be able to access “information derived from the Internet,” in the words of the bill, but not the internet itself. Only those willing to pay for slower access speeds (and perhaps willing to pay more for these slower speeds than for the high-speed access) will be seeing “the Internet.”
“We built it, and so we own it, and we won’t block access to the internet,” the telcos say. But this is rhetorical legerdemain. “We built it,” means “We built high-speed access.” “We own it,” means “We own our high-speed access fiber networks.” “We won’t block access to the internet,” means “This high-speed network will let you see information derived from the Internet from partners who have paid us. It isn’t purporting to carry ‘the internet,’ and so we aren’t blocking access to ‘the internet.’ If you want ‘the internet,’ go buy another, slower service, from us or someone else.”
In a nutshell, in the Bells' minds refusing to provide access to the public internet via their high-speed networks is completely compatible with network neutrality. Sure, they'll be neutral — when it comes to slower, 2001-era speeds that (eventually) no one will want.
Phooey.